LOTR:Articles for deletion
Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where LOTR users discuss whether articles should be deleted. Items sent here usually wait a couple of weeks while debate takes place on whether the article should be deleted or not; then the deletion process can proceed based on community consensus. The page is then: *Kept *Deleted per the deletion policy *Sent to Cleanup or BJAODN *Merged and/or redirected to an existing article *Renamed/Moved to another title *Userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage When nominating an article for deletion, add template to the top of its page, which expands to: Please vote below to either Delete or Keep Current nominations Template:Infobox Album/doc This is an outdated User sandbox that has served its original purpose, now it remains as just an ancient copy of the Template:Infobox Album. I say we delete it as it has lost any purpose of existance here. Winterz (talk) 19:52, March 10, 2013 (UTC) The Lord of the Rings Birthdays This is an unnecessary list; the birthday's are at character's article. Why do we need a list for it!? Plus, it has never been updated or paid any attention to. I vote delete!--DarkLantern (talk) 17:28, March 8, 2013 (UTC) *I say we burn it down! Winterz (talk) 18:06, March 8, 2013 (UTC) Bridge I vote delete. This is another ridiculous page like "Rabbits" – just because an object – a common, ordinary object or animal – is mentioned or used in some Tolkien book, doesn't mean you should have an entire page about it. It's just silly. The entire page is things like "The Noldor probably built bridges, and Aulë was a great builder of things so he probably built the first bridge, and the elves probably also built them because there was a bridge at Rivendell, and also Hobbits had them as well…." You could replace "bridge" with trees, houses, rope, … thousands of ordinary nouns could have their own page. There's no excuse for this. It's just ludicrous. *There are some bridges which are very relevant to the Wiki, so I say we turn that article into a list or disambiguation page, so my vote is no to deletion. Winterz (talk) 12:17, February 26, 2013 (UTC) :I agree with Winterz should be a disambiguation page.--DarkLantern (talk) 18:59, February 26, 2013 (UTC) List of Wizards There only five Wizards listed total! We don't need another list on just anything in Tolkien Mythology. I vote delete--DarkLantern (talk) 21:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC) *'Delete', per above. Winterz (talk) 21:45, February 24, 2013 (UTC) Anar (dwarf) I changed this from to because the original page creator identified the character as coming from the The Lord of the Rings: War in the North video game. I don't know if that's enough to save it, but I've seen other non-canon characters that have been given their own page, so I thought it should at least have a little discussion before it's deleted. - Gradivus, 03:51, January 4, 2013 (UTC) *I'd agree not to delete it. Should receive some work though. Winterz (talk) 21:46, February 24, 2013 (UTC) *'Do not delete, not yet.' Anar is said to be one of the dwarves who accompanied Bilbo in The Fellowship of the Ring. He's not only a non-canon character. Maybe we could only adjust the page. - Darkchylde (talk) 11:08, March 7, 2013 (UTC) Goblins It's pretty well established that, while colloquially many people think goblins are small types of orc, per Tolkien the two words are essentially synonymous. The "Goblins" page should be deleted and links to that page should be redirected to "Orcs" - where, incidentally, the issue of the two different words is discussed at length (perhaps at too much length, but that's another issue). Valid info from the two pages can be merged. - Gradivus, 15:57, December 19, 2012 (UTC) Keep. It will be far to confusing on one hand. And plus Goblins are the smaller Orcs. Yes they are Orcs, just like the Uruk-Hai for example, but are referred as Goblins. For example I'm European (Orc), but I'm also English (Goblin), that means while I'm an Orc, I'm also a Goblin. Should not merge.... TheGoldenSickle, December 19, 2012 (UTC) Delete. Keeping two pages only continues the mistaken belief that the two words (goblin and orc) mean something different. There is no evidence that Tolkien meant goblin to be anything more than a translation of orc; the word "Goblins" doesn't even appear in the exhaustive index of The Lord of the Rings under "Persons, Beasts and Monsters", at all! ("Orcs", of course, does appear,) Golden Sickle, can you give any citation of a canon (Tolkien) statement or suggestion that goblins are the proper term for smaller orcs? In The Hobbit Tolkien used "goblin" to refer to all orcs, Including the Great Goblin – who I believe was huge and therefore (if you are right) should have been referred to as an orc. He wasn't. - Gradivus, 18:19, December 19, 2012 (UTC) I still say keep. The Great Goblin, as Tolkien states later, may have actually been an evil spirit in the form of a goblin/orc. While as I stated Goblins ARE Orcs, but it's easier to divide them. In your logic I can also ask why do the Uruk-hai have a page if they are all Orcs, and why do the Mountain and Cave trolls have a page - if there all Trolls, the answer is simple - because they are not just orcs, there Uruk-hai, they are not just Trolls, there Hill-Trolls (for example). And yes Goblins are smaller in size, you can tell by Tolkien's descriptions of them in "The Hobbit", as opposed to the later Orc descriptions. Even the Moria Orcs, are in fact Goblins. TheGoldenSickle, December 19, 2012 (UTC). : Delete. The reason Uruks and Uruk-Hai (literally, "Uruk-men," meaning the same as "Uruks") can have their own page is that they are specifically mentioned by Tolkien, in Lord of the Rings, as a particular class of orc. Tolkien never mentions goblins as a distinctive class of orc, and I see you have not managed to find any citation from a canon source to support your contention that they are. Saying that Tolkien used the word in The Hobbit is no help because he used goblin throughout that book, and later Tolkien himself specifically said that the word just means "orc" and that he used the English word "goblin" for simplicity. -- Gradivus, 20:34, December 19, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree to merge it with the orcs article and text adjusted accordingly. Yes, Tolkien never mentions Goblins as a class of orc but he DOES mention them thoroughly in The Hobbit and that deserves some consideration. Merge!--DarkLantern (talk) 22:02, December 19, 2012 (UTC) :: Agreed, merge. That's what I meant by delete, i.e., merge the pages and delete the second page. Yes, Tolkien used the word goblins throughout The Hobbit so it should not be disregarded and should be discussed (as it already is on the Orcs page), but I think Tolkien was quite clear that he meant it to mean the same thing as what he called orcs in his later books. It was only in The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien started using his own languages; The Hobbit was basically a children's book (albeit a sophisticated one), so he used English words as much as possible, which is why he used the word goblin In that book. --Gradivus, 03:14, December 20, 2012 (UTC) :::I think that the Goblins page should be merged with the Orc page, makes sense as it will stop confusion that they are separate breeds but I don't think that goblins should be completely removed as the word is mentioned a lot and from the way it it used in books like The Hobbit it does seem possible that Goblin refers to smaller or less advanced orcs, also goblin imps are mentioned so they must be a real thing in the universe. (The Great Goblin (talk) 00:30, December 21, 2012 (UTC)) HiddenVale has removed the (Articles for deletion) notice from the "Goblins" page and since the consensus here so far seems to be Merge, I've added a template there. - Gradivus, 12:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC) Keep Theres an obvious difference between orcs and goblins yes they are orcs but if uruks and uruk hai have their own pages than goblins should as well Keep If you have actually read The Hobbit, then you will see the line: Because all goblins, even the Orcs of the mountains, ride low. This shows that Orcs are a species of Goblin and if one page is to be redirected to the other then it is Orcs that should be redirected to Goblins. Keelan717 ( Talk ) 16:38, January 12, 2013 (UTC) Keep, per above. Winterz (talk) 12:19, February 26, 2013 (UTC) Rabbits Really? A separate page is needed to tell people what rabbits are? Really? Are we going to have a separate page for every common noun used in Tolkien's writing? Bacon? Taters? Trail? Doors? Clouds? : Keep It has a legitimate place here as long as the article sticks to its relation to Tolkien Mythology and the story.--DarkLantern (talk) 01:35, December 22, 2012 (UTC) : Keep it, rabbits are involved in the stories and now that the hobbit is out there can be a film section added about Radagast's rabbits in the film. (The Great Goblin (talk) 02:44, December 22, 2012 (UTC)) :Delete, say I. Too many ordinary words are being given their own pages, as though their ordinary English meanings have to be explained, just because they are used by Tolkien in his stories. If a "Rabbits" page is justified, then don't forget to have a separate page for "Sled" too, then. And Gandalf had a beard, so let's have a "Beards" page. The book described his clothes and hat, too - "Clothes" and "Hat" pages needed! I still say delete. - Gradivus, 19:47, January 12, 2013 (UTC) :Delete. There is no reason there should be a page for an insignificant species such as a rabbit as you could get as much as you need to know on other websites. This Wiki is not a nature guide (or a dictionary for that matter!). - Keelan717 ( Talk ), 11:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC) :Keep, rabbits have become rather notable. Winterz (talk) 21:48, February 24, 2013 (UTC) List of named original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy All of the characters listed there now have their own page, therefore it is no longer needed and as they are all Non-canon film characters and those types are second-class entries here, I don't see the value in it or the use in it anymore. I vote Delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:50, September 14, 2012 (UTC) I think it's helpful to have a page that lists them all in one place, to answer the question "What new named characters were made up for the movies that weren't in the books?" So I vote Keep. - Gradivus, 01:32, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Witch King's Ring of Power Motivation: The rings given to man were not named and we don't know if there were differences between the rings given to men. Thus, there is no reason to make an article specifically about the ring given to the Witch-King. Also, it is an orphaned page.--Nognix 16:15, February 22, 2012 (UTC) :I agree, however since the author provided a picture from a video game then that may be grounds for making it a non-canon article.--DarkLantern 17:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Can you honestly see what it even is in that picture? It's one pixel big and it's the most unclear picture ever. Also, I can see by the graphical style that that isn't a video game picture but a picture from the films. But no problem, I'll just start writing a ton of worthless articles that do have a picture from a random video game in the article. I could even create random pictures since you don't know anything about videogames and just include those in my useless articles. Anyway, I'll be writing an article about Elfhelm's sword or his helmet and I'll be sure to create a one-pixel-big, unclear, blurry photograph so it fits the guidelines. End of my reductio ad absurdum.--Nognix 19:23, February 24, 2012 (UTC) :::No, need to over state things Mr. Nognix you've made you're point. I can't find in a search any evidence of this picture or information or connection to a video game anywhere so I vote delete unless of course the author or someone else can justify it.--DarkLantern 05:29, February 25, 2012 (UTC) The Theme Motivation: The creator of this page moved a blogpost and created a full article about it. I think this should be removed or cleaned up.--Nognix 16:30, February 22, 2012 (UTC) :Cleaned up--DarkLantern 17:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC) The Two Hunters Fan Film I'd suggest Keep'''ing it. The creator-to-be of this fan film does still seem to be active; he's occasionally updating his diary about it on his site. I love the LOTR fan films and am glad to see any information available about more that are potentially on their way. Peyre (talk) 03:11, October 27, 2012 (UTC) Previous nominations Hound Motivation: All given information is also in the Dog article.--Nognix 17:03, February 22, 2012 (UTC) :I agree '''Delete and transfer text to Dog article.--DarkLantern 03:25, February 23, 2012 (UTC) :Delete and merge to Dog. Winterz (talk) 21:50, February 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Merged with Dogs--DarkLantern (talk) 05:39, March 10, 2013 (UTC) Uruk-Hai Scouts Motivation: The information stated in the article is incorrect, I don't think there is a reference in the books or the films that the first Uruk-hai were called scouts. It is also an orphaned page.--Nognix 16:21, February 22, 2012 (UTC) Keep Uruk scouts were indeed the first Uruk hai. They don't have to be named by Saruman himself to be scouts, they were SCOUTING for the fellowship, so that basically makes 'em scouts. Just like pikeman Uruk-hai, they're carrying pikes, so call them pikemen, even though they were not named of their position in the books or movies, they're pikemen.Just like scouts. I vote keep.--Sauron's man 14:54, August 27, 2012 (UTC) Keep. The above mentioned is correct. Every army has it's scouts... - TheGoldenSickle, December 19, 2012 (UTC) I vote Delete. Uruks do whatever their master tells them to, whether it's scouting or raiding or killing, or whatever. they're not a separate class or profession. We don't need a separate page for everything they might do; it's silly. - Gradivus, 02:16, December 24, 2012 (UTC) :Delete, too much speculation. Winterz (talk) 21:49, February 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Agree delete--DarkLantern (talk) 02:20, March 7, 2013 (UTC) :::Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 02:20, March 7, 2013 (UTC) Battles of the Third Age This is unnecessary we have Battles, Timeline of Arda, and individual articles to explain them in detail. We don't need yet another list! I vote delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 11:30, December 30, 2012 (UTC) #I agree, delete. - Gradivus, 15:14, December 30, 2012 (UTC) #'Delete'. Winterz (talk) 12:18, February 26, 2013 (UTC) :Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 12:50, February 26, 2013 (UTC) Uruviel's Argonath Motivation: Advertising of a fan site. I checked the site and the last update was on the 4th of March, 2009 so I think we can assume it's dead as well.--Nognix 16:09, February 22, 2012 (UTC) :Keep This is allowed to be here the way it is.--DarkLantern 17:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Where exactly do you draw the line between fandom and non fandom? You say you don't allow fandom on the site but we have fandom sites and fandom films.--Nognix 19:23, February 24, 2012 (UTC) :::Keep see:Forum:On Fandom--DarkLantern 05:29, February 25, 2012 (UTC) ::::Kept Internet fansites can be listed and described here.--DarkLantern (talk) 17:51, January 12, 2013 (UTC) Uruk sappers I believe the text to be movie stuff and speculation at that. I don't remember any Uruk-hai group known as Uruk sappers. Where did the author get that name from? I vote delete if no proof is stated.--DarkLantern (talk) 13:37, August 23, 2012 (UTC) ::EXACTLY! That's something you should tell Sauron's Man directly, but you don't need to now. It should be deleted. HiddenVale (talk) 22:59, August 23, 2012 (UTC) :::I have read through the chapter Helm Deep and found no evidence that this special unit of Uruks existed.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC) :::EXACTLY! That's something you should tell Sauron's Man directly, but you don't need to now. It should be deleted. HiddenVale (talk) 22:59, August 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::I agree there's no point for this page; it's not a particular type of orc. I vote delete. - Gradivus, 01:41, January 10, 2013 (UTC) :::::Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 02:10, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Sappers I have read through the chapter Helm Deep and found no evidence that this special unit of Uruks existed.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC) I agree there's no point for this page; it's not a particular type of orc. I vote delete. - Gradivus, 01:41, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Nathan Clark Give it the axe. May warrant a . :Deleted vandalism anyway--DarkLantern (talk) 21:38, January 7, 2013 (UTC) The Black Pits I vote Delete! My reason is recorded here.--DarkLantern (talk) 13:14, September 9, 2012 (UTC) :And where in books does it even say mines are under Barad-dûr (Lugburz)?--DarkLantern (talk) 00:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Exactly!! HiddenVale (talk) 00:21, August 22, 2012 (UTC) :::Deleted some text moved to Barad-dûr.--DarkLantern (talk) 06:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC) Mines of Lugburz Never heard of such a mine being under Barad-dûr. I vote delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC) :And where in books does it even say mines are under Barad-dûr (Lugburz)?--DarkLantern (talk) 00:17, August 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Exactly!! HiddenVale (talk) 00:21, August 22, 2012 (UTC) :::Deleted some text moved to Barad-dûr.--DarkLantern (talk) 06:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC) Outsiders I vote delete.--DarkLantern (talk) 17:27, September 18, 2012 (UTC) I vote delete. Too many ordinary words are being given their own pages, as though their ordinary English meanings have to be explained, just because they are used by Tolkien in his stories. I feel the same about rabbits as well. :Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 17:42, January 5, 2013 (UTC) Dragon Tales: Adventures in Dragon Land Funding Credits (2000) (transcript) There's a troll at work here. I've never edited this wiki before, but I know a troll when I see one. This has nothing to do with anything. TheLoKnessmonster 01:35, January 3, 2013 (UTC) Théoden's Decision Motivation: I'll just use this page for any pages that don't really need to be voted, they just need to be deleted. I didn't see this scene already existed so I made a new one with the same name. Anyway, remove this.--Nognix 18:49, February 28, 2012 (UTC) :Deleted empty!--DarkLantern (talk) 06:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC) Ripper Orc No such kind of orc. I vote delete!--DarkLantern (talk) 08:13, August 26, 2012 (UTC) I half believe Ripper orcs. Yes, some orcs tortured Gollum, but they had torture devices, and one orc mentioned is really a Black uruk as in my page. I really don't know which to vote; Delete or redirect to Orcs.--Saurons man (talk) 02:28, August 28, 2012 (UTC) Forget about what I said, Delete! And as you said, no such orc was mentioned by Tolkien, and orcs don't carry clubs and shortswords and do errands. These are likely to be >Morgul orcs< or >Snagae< and not some kind of orc that's not even real! Delete,delete,delete!--Saurons man (talk) 8:26, August 28, 2012 (UTC) :Deleted--DarkLantern (talk) 09:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC) Archives *2007-05-01 Archive *2008-11-30 Archive *2010-2-12 Archive *2012-9-10 Archive